"Whereas he (Gloucester), being protector and defender of this land, desired the Tower to be opened to him, and to lodge him therein, Richard Woodville, Esquire, having at that time the charge of the keeping of the Tower, refused his desire, and kept the same Tower against him unduly and without reason, by the commandment of my said Lord of Winchester, and afterwards, in approving of the said refusal, he received the said Woodville, and cherished him, against the state and worship of the King, and of my said Lord of Gloucester."

The answer of the Bishop was—

That it seemeth lawful that the Tower should have been notably stored and kept with victuals; howbeit it was not forthwith executed, and that in likewise after that my said Lord of Gloucester was gone into his country of Hainault, for seditious and odious bills and languages cast and used in the city of London, sounding of insurrection and rebellion against the King's peace, and destruction as well of divers estates of this land, as strangers being under the defence, inasmuch that, in doubt thereof, strangers in great numbers fled the land. And for the more keeping of the said Tower, Richard Woodville, Esquire, so trusted with our sovereign lord the king, that dead is (as well ye know), as also chamberlain and counsellor to my Lord of Bedford, with a certain number of defensible persons assigned unto him, was made deputy there by the assent of the King's council, being at that time in London, for to abide

therein, for the safeguard thereof, and strictly charged by the said council that, during the time of his said charge, he should not suffer any man to be in the Tower stronger than himself, without especial charge or commandment of the King by the advice of his council."*

The recent publication of Sir Harris Nicholas† furnishes us with an order of council committing the custody of the Tower to Woodville with a competent force, but I find no trace of the singular clause to which Beaufort refers.

I know not what authority there is for the conflict in the streets of London, but Winchester was certainly charged by Gloucester with arming men against him. The commentators say that a tawny coat was the livery of an apparitor, or officer of the bishop's court.

The origin of the quarrel between Gloucester and the Cardinal cannot be discussed without a minuter investigation than belongs to us here. Ambition, probably, and love of power, furnish the best solution; but, whether these passions were equally divided, or, as the author of this play would apparently have us believe, were more eminent and mischievous in the churchman, I am not prepared

* Hol. 147, 148. Holinshed takes the charges from Hall, but I do not find them in the Rolls. They have the appearance of authenticity.

+ Privy Council Proceedings, 26th Feb, 1425, iii. 167.

to decide. I have mentioned the limitations of the Protector's power, imposed by the council.* In these the Cardinal had probably a part; and it is probable that he concurred with ecclesiastics in general in condemning the marriage of the Duke with the self-divorced Jacqueline.†

We have now the King in the parliament-house, surrounded by his nobles, among whom are named Exeter, Gloucester, Warwick, Somerset, and Suffolk; the Bishop of Winchester, and also Richard Plantagenet, of whom presently. And then this singular stage direction

"Gloucester offers to put up a bill, Winchester snatches it and tears it."

This is the parliament held at Leicester, in the year 1425, the fourth of Henry's reign,‡ when he was about four years old; by the bill is intended Gloucester's charge against Beaufort, of which I have spoken. The accused makes a rather remarkable objection to the form of the accusation, which I quote because it is conveyed in lines somewhat more Shakspearean than most of those which we find in this play :—

Winch. Com'st thou with deep premeditated lines, With written pamphlets studiously devised,

* P. 221. See Rolls, iv. 326. See Lingard, v. 56.

† See Lingard, v. 66, as to opposition made to the match:

the evidence is very scanty.

Parl. Hist. i. 354. Rolls, iv. 295, 18 Feb. 1425.

Humphrey of Gloucester? If thou canst accuse,
Or aught intend'st to lay unto my charge,
Do it without invention, suddenly;
As I with sudden and extemporal speech
Purpose to answer what thou canst object.

"Glo. Presumptuous priest! this place commands
my patience,

Or thou should'st find thou hast dishonour'd me.
Think not, although in writing I preferr'd
The manner of thy vile outrageous crimes,
That therefore I have forged, or am not able
Verbatim to rehearse the method of my pen.
No, prelate; such is thy audacious wickedness,
Thy lewd, pestiferous, and dissentious pranks,
As very infants prattle of thy pride."

And the following lines are taken from one of the articles:

-

"And for thy treachery, what's more manifest?

In that thou laid'st a trap to take my life,
As well at London Bridge as at the Tower?"

The second article charges Beaufort with intending to take the King from Eltham; and the third alleges that, when the Duke determined to go to Eltham, and to take measures for protecting him

My said Lord of Winchester, untruly, and against the King's peace, to the intent to trouble my said Lord of Gloucester going to the King, purposing his death in

case that he had gone that way, set men at arms and archers at the end of London Bridge next Southwark.”

The dramatist does not avail himself of the Chronicle for Winchester's defence, which consists in an appeal to his poverty and love of peace.

In the play, Warwick takes part with Gloucester; and Somerset, himself a Beaufort, with the Cardinal. We have then another fray between the retainers of the two parties in the very presence of the King, who endeavours to effect a reconciliation.

The little King certainly could not now interfere, but it is true that the dissentions between his two uncles were the subject of parliamentary consideration. The quarrel had begun, and had apparently produced riots, very early in the reign; the Bishop wrote his complaints to the Duke of Bedford, who came over from France to settle the dispute, which was finally referred to the parliament at Leicester. In the play, Winchester is the more difficult to be reconciled, and in an aside avows his insincerity: but the record shows that either the prelate was fairly thought to be in the wrong, or Gloucester was the more powerful in parliament, for the former was obliged to make a submission.

The dispute having been referred to the arbitration of several peers, it was decreed that the Cardinal should make the following apology: